Shit, if it would just stop raining here I could get out and play some golf and probably not even think about global warming. Well, depending on how the game is going I may think the world is ending. 😉

I think it’s a mistake to look at weather patterns over short periods of time or in particular places. I cringe when someone blames a hurricane on global warming, or points to a big snow storm as evidence that it’s not happening.

As for human causes, let’s put all the technical stuff to the side for a moment and think about it this way. We were able to blow big holes in the ozone layer through a century or less of CFC use. Why is it so hard to believe that constantly pumping pollution into the atmosphere all over the globe wouldn’t impact climate? Wouldn’t it be more surprising to find out it had no impact?

Why is it so hard to believe that constantly pumping pollution into the atmosphere all over the globe wouldn’t impact climate? Wouldn’t it be more surprising to find out it had no impact?

I think among reasonable people, you are right. For example, both Sean and I agree with the concept that humans are contributing to warming. But the reasonable person isn’t the person leading the charge in this whole Global Warming/Climate Change thing…it’s evangelists.

There are people who feel we’ll be better off with $10 gas, taxing CO2 and phasing out the use of oil. These people are “alarmists”. So, if there are people on the right who will accept the idea of human contribution to warming, where are the reasonable people on the left who’ll agree to stipulate that the amount of warming contributed doesn’t really amount to all that much?

” where are the reasonable people on the left who’ll agree to stipulate that the amount of warming contributed doesn’t really amount to all that much?”

Ummm, why do you want us to stipulate to something that’s not true? The only reason there’s even the illusion of a lack of scientific consensus is because of a few scientists funded either by (1) the industries most implicated by climate change (2) libertarian think tanks (CATO/American Enterprise/Club for Growth etc..) who recognize that global environmental problems are the libertarian’s worst nightmare.

When those on the right deny climate change, they’re labelled extremists. But there exits no such label for the folks on the left who feel that catastrophic climate change is the only possible way to interpret the data.

If you acknowledge the extreme “right” position, what would the extreme “left” position be? Or do you see no “extreme left” position?

I don’t know that this is or should be an extreme left/right position, and we’re really talkinga bout two issues (1) evidence of human caused climate change and (2) what we do about it.

As for (1) I think an extreme position would be to say that companies emitting CO2 are responsible for severe weather events and things like that.

On (2) I think things like demanding that we shut down all coal plants would be extreme. Or even demanding a complete stop to new coal plants when we clearly still aren’t capable of that kind of transition.

I tend to think climate change opponents/deniers are the extreme ones. I haven’t seen any policies given serious consideration that strike me as extreme. In fact, cap and trade, which has gotten the most traction, is pretty much a republican idea. Carbon tax doesn’t strike me as extreme. We tax cigarettes, afterall.

As for (1) I think an extreme position would be to say that companies emitting CO2 are responsible for severe weather events and things like that.

But that’s what the alarmists are saying. That global warming is causing Katrina and southern tornadoes.

On (2) I think things like demanding that we shut down all coal plants would be extreme. Or even demanding a complete stop to new coal plants when we clearly still aren’t capable of that kind of transition.

Whew!

I tend to think climate change opponents/deniers are the extreme ones.

To be fair, that’s prolly true of any person regarding any position. Those who don’t agree with my completely rational belief are extreme.

So we are all in general agreement that humans are contributing to global warming.

Next question…
What do we do about it. I look at it this way. My wife and I have four cats. We try our best to give them a good life, but I know that they will not live forever. They will eventually die. There is nothing that I can do to change that one fact. My goal, concerning my cats, is simply to give them a high quality of life while they are still alive. The earth is likely going to keep warming; ocean levels will likely keep rising; extreme and erratic storms will likely increase in frequency. So… it happens, just like death. My goal is not to stop global warming, I favor a strategy of learning to adapt to the changes. We SHOULD NOT intentionally increase global warming, but trying to stop it, is in my mind, very close to trying to stop death. I know these may appear to be words of a defeatist, but I believe they are words of a realist.

” Why is it so hard to believe that constantly pumping pollution into the atmosphere all over the globe wouldn’t impact climate? ”

Yes , but what is pollution ? Obama inc. wants CO2 to be a pollutant . Everything humans do emits it . The most radical left wing hippie in the 60s would have laughed at calling CO2 pollution . As far as real pollution that has a measurable and provable effect on the environment, we can all agree if has to be regulated .

And why would real pollution lead to global warming ? It is much more likely to block the Sun’s radiation and cool the earth like Mount Pinatubo did . Watch how much pollution went up in pictures of that . I remember how cold the winter of 93-94 was after that in Pa .

certain kinds of ozone up in the atmosphere is good. certain kinds of ozone in the air we breathe is bad for us and is considered pollution. Just because CO2 exists naturally in the air doesn’t preclude it from having polluting effects in specific circumstances. Even oxygen, which is what we breathe to survive, coud kill us in the wrong concentration.

So when we talk about CO2 as a pollutant what we really mean is that it becomes a pollutant at a certain concentration because it begins to trap too much heat.

I would also recommend resisting the urge to draw conclusions about impacts on global climate over the long term based on what happened the winter after a volcano erupted.

So you believe that CO2 in it’s current concentration in the atmosphere is a pollutant ? The people who claim that it is have been amazingly wrong in their predictions so far . They like to have it two ways, which makes them hypocrites . When anything bad happens, it is global warming . Hurricanes, droughts , floods, and heat waves were evidence of climate change . When our side points out blizzards and cold waves in unusual places, your side says weather is not climate .

Pinatubo is relevant because it illustrates that there is pollution and then there is pollution .

I think if you look at data showing average global temperatures long term (thousands and thousands of years) you see clear evidence of a sudden and significant rise in the last century or so. I’m not talking about blaming hurricanes on global warming. I’m talking about average temps, worldwide, over time. It may be unusually hot one place and unusally cold somewhere else – that doesn’t matter. What matters is the overall warming trend and the extreme warming trend that’s underway in the poles, where a lot of water has been frozen for a long time but is beginning to melt now.

I think if you look at data showing average global temperatures long term (thousands and thousands of years) you see clear evidence of a sudden and significant rise in the last century or so.

Like this one?

The globe has a long and rich history of warming. And cooling.

Alan Scott said: May 19, 201110:57 pm

Rachel Carson wrote a book in 1951 called The Sea Around Us. This woman was an original environmentalist, so no right wing bias there . In her book she noted 700 year cycles of warming and cooling that went back thousands of years . The medieval warming period when the Vikings settled Greenland, around 1000 AD was the peak of the last warming period . The climate turned much colder in 1300 and by the early 1400s the Vikings in Greenland were wiped out by the cold . The warming that has been seen in the last 150 years is consistent with the next expected warm up .